1. Where did your likes go? Please Read This Thread »
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

Economy Pharmaceutical giant to charge $3,000 for $10 coronavirus treatment despite massive public subsidies

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Trotsky, Jun 29, 2020.

  1. monster zero I want my chips with the DIP

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    The NORTH
    It's ok because Gilead will reinvest the money.





    In politicians political campaigns so those politicians can give them more public dollars. It's a beautiful system, "democracy and capitalism".

    You elect whoever receives the most campaign dollars and they funnel tax dollars to private corporations.
     
  2. Utahraptor Ostrommaysi Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,875
    Likes Received:
    447
    I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they won't charge $3,000 when they do.
     
  3. The Audience Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    104
    The line is forming for a COVID-19 vaccine. Who should be at the front?

    This was an interesting read and raised the point of whether ethnic minorities should get some priority for vaccination, given how these groups appear to be disproportionately affected by the coronavirus. Quite the consideration, given recent events.
     
  4. TheWorm Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    Messages:
    12,478
    Likes Received:
    922
    Location:
    The top soil in your garden.
    ‘Murica
     
  5. brother mouzone White Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2020
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    139
    Lol they would have already charged more than that in taxes over the years preceding.

    Are we really bitching about life saving medicine costing 3,000? Wasn't that the higher number that only the insurance would pay anyway lol?
     
  6. cincymma79 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    16,356
    Likes Received:
    321
    Wasting your time. They either can't get it and aren't worth the effort, or are purposefully missing it
     
  7. fizban Blue Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    412

    yes we are. for many working people 3000 dollars is a bill they cannot handle. imagine 3 people in one family getting it and needing that medication who are uninsured.

    our tax dollars pay for the R and D on medications and then we pay high prices to subsidies the low prices other countries pay (because they are allowed to negotiate prices) all while drug companies are among the most profitable business on the planet.

    its stupid as hell.
     
  8. Natural Order Naughty by Nurture

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Send
    Out of likes, but appreciate the tempered response. Good points.
     
  9. Natural Order Naughty by Nurture

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Send
    Yeah that's pretty gross.
     
  10. Sano Red Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    9,841
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Denmark
    If only there was a candidate you who actually gave a fuck about this AND was willing to fight for it.... Guess that ship has sailed. At this point I'm tempted to say that the American people reap what they sow, yet, I feel for the millions of citizens struggling with healthcare on both sides of the political spectrum.
     
  11. asdffdsa Brown Belt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    36
    But not surprising. We all only get one shot at life, so it's pretty natural for an industry to take advantage of that scarcity especially when insurance companies and the govt. are complicit in making healthcare as opaque and complicated as possible.

    I just looked up the top 10 most profitable industries in the US and most of the others don't do much more than siphon money from the rest of the population.
     
    Natural Order likes this.
  12. Natural Order Naughty by Nurture

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Send
    Fair view. It's very unfortunate though.
     
  13. KnightTemplar Halloween Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    39,053
    Likes Received:
    630
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Like the man said,



    Big Pharma are pond scum. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.
     
  14. Utahraptor Ostrommaysi Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,875
    Likes Received:
    447
    Well the data shows that countries that have Universal healthcare spend significantly less on healthcare than what the US spends, and a Universal healthcare system would save American citizens 2-5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
    Yes, because I think the life saving medicine should be free. That way everyone will have access to it. I don't see what's so unreasonable or radical about that.
     
  15. Utahraptor Ostrommaysi Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,875
    Likes Received:
    447
    Yes, unfortunately we are going stuck with either Trump or Biden for the next 4 years. And they are going to keep the shitty privatized healthcare system we have now. Meanwhile, millions of people will not have access to healthcare because they can't afford it.
    Bernie was the president we need, but it seems like Trump/Biden is the president we deserve because we were the ones who elected them.
     
    Sano likes this.
  16. The Audience Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    104
    US buys up world stock of key Covid-19 drug

    "Remdesivir...The first 140,000 doses, supplied to drug trials around the world, have been used up. The Trump administration has now bought more than 500,000 doses, which is all of Gilead’s production for July and 90% of August and September.

    “President Trump has struck an amazing deal to ensure Americans have access to the first authorised therapeutic for Covid-19,” said the US health and human services secretary, Alex Azar. “To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. The Trump administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for Covid-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

    They’ve got access to most of the drug supply [of remdesivir], so there’s nothing for Europe,” said Dr Andrew Hill, senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University. Hill said there was a way for the UK to secure supplies of this and other drugs during the pandemic, through what is known as a compulsory licence, which overrides the intellectual property rights of the company. That would allow the UK government to buy from generic companies in Bangladesh or India, where Gilead’s patent is not recognised.

    The UK has always upheld patents, backing the argument of pharma companies that they need their 20-year monopoly to recoup the money they put into research and development. But other countries have shown an interest in compulsory licensing. “It is a question of what countries are prepared to do if this becomes a problem,” said Hill."

    America first i guess. Interesting point about overriding the IP.



     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
    ookii and Lead like this.
  17. hitcher Arguably the perfect human

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mensa
    If that actually helps, Europe (or any other country for that matter) should not give a fuck about IP. That's a pretty clear cut case imo. If Gilead cries, well that's bad luck innit?
     
    ookii and Neph like this.
  18. HockeyBjj Putting on the foil

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    18,086
    Likes Received:
    1,558
  19. The Audience Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    104
    Seems like the trial [publicly funded] referred to above that was published in NEJM -upon which the efficacy of Remdesivir was being relied upon, contained significant elements of Gilead influence:
    "The published report also disclosed that Gilead supplied the drug for the trial, one of the trial investigators was a Gilead employee, and six other authors declared financial ties to Gilead. Finally, an additional note disclosed that employees of Gilead “participated in discussion about protocol development and in weekly protocol team calls,” a level of engagement suggesting this drug trial could not be regarded as independent from the manufacturer."

    In fact, it was the second trial published in NEJM on Remdesivir; the first was Gilead funded and: "a third of the authors were Gilead employees... Gilead's press release reported “clinical improvement in 68% of patients in this limited dataset.”. Despite being a non-randomised, uncontrolled, company funded study of just 53 patients, media headlines described “hopeful” signs and reported “two thirds” of patients showing improvement."

    Contrast this with a study published in the Lancet 2 weeks later: "the Lancet published a randomised placebo controlled trial of remdesivir from China, finding no statistically significant clinical benefit in the primary outcome of time to clinical improvement. 12% per cent of participants taking remdesivir stopped treatment early because of adverse events, compared with 5% taking placebo."

    "On the same day as the lacklustre Lancet findings were published, two other events helped sustain global hype about remdesivir. First, an upbeat media release by Gilead promoted preliminary results from another company funded study, still weeks away from submission for peer review. Second, Anthony Fauci, a member of President Trump’s coronavirus task force, unexpectedly announced preliminary findings from a publicly funded trial being run in the US. Adding to Trump’s previous promotion of remdesivir as a potential “game-changer,” Fauci told the world the trial’s results suggested the drug could become the “standard of care” for covid-19, before any peer reviewed data were available for scrutiny."

    [above quotes from: Commercial interest and covid19]

    Big pharma in action?
    So you have in Remdesivir, an antiviral drug that was initially developed by Gilead for hepatitis, but has reportedly proven ineffective, and subsequently tried in the treatment of Ebola and again shown to be ineffective -with reports from DRC that large scale vaccination effectively ended that outbreak. Might Gilead have used the current crisis-led lack of proper scrutiny and fast-tracking of data to repurpose an unsuccessful piece of their portfolio into a much-awaited 'game-changing' treatment? The fact that the US has bought up the world's supply for the next three months, will surely also only create further demand for those countries desperate not to miss out when stocks are replenished; Gilead dumping remdesivir on a desperate global population?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
  20. blaseblah Steel Belt

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    27,473
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    This is where deregulation of the economy gets you. Thanks Reagan.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.